IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Priti alias Priya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 565 of 2019
Decided On : 19-12-2023
FIR Quashing - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 376 IPC, Section 154 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376 IPC, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the public interest in punishing persons for such serious offences. It also referred to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., highlighting the importance of judicial scrutiny and the need for leading evidence in court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim and complainant in a case under Section 376 IPC, sought quashing of the FIR and proceedings, claiming that her statement was fictional due to medication influence. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed, and she argued that no fruitful purpose would be served by conducting the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the need for judicial scrutiny. It highlighted the importance of leading evidence in court and the public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
Issues: Validity of the petitioner's claim that her statement was fictional due to medication influence, and the appropriateness of quashing the FIR and proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the public interest in punishing persons for serious offences, and the importance of judicial scrutiny and leading evidence in court.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing the FIR and proceedings was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner herein is victim and complainant in case FIR No.212 of 2017, dated 21.11.2017, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against respondent No.2. She has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings arising thereto pending in the Trial Court.
2. FIR in present case was registered on the basis of statement of petitioner recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, Shimla, wherein she had stated that she was resident of Kailash Nagar, Kurukshetra, Haryana and was residing in Knollswood, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, since last two months after passing her 10+2 examinations. On 19.11.2017 her father was called by Colonel Grewal (respondent No.2) for a programme in Gaiety Theatre, whereupon she alongwith her father had reached Gaiety Theatre. At 5.30 p.m., Grewal after programme, offered dinner to them and at that time Grewal was advising her to go to Mumbai for modeling. When she and Grewal, for a while, were alone, Grewal offered her drink (liquor) and when her father went to washroom, Grewal obtained her mobile phone number also.
3. It has further been stated that after reaching home, complainant-victim sent a message to Grewal to make a call her and Grewal made a call to her and she inquired him about prospects of modeling. Whereupon, he said that she could become ‘Diva’ by 2019 and she believed Grewal. On 20.11.2017, Grewal asked her to send her photographs to him so as to enable him to send the same to his daughter. Therefore, she shared her photographs on Whatsapp with Grewal. Thereafter, Grewal made a call to her and asked her to meet him, by saying that Choreographer and Modeling Director were sitting with him and her Aunty and Maid are also at home. On that day, at about 2.00 p.m., she, without telling her father, went to Lakkar Bazaar and made a call to Grewal, who, after some time reached there to receive her. On her asking, again he repeated that her Aunty and Maid are at home and she was, for him, like a younger daughter and he asked to believe him, by saying that her father is serving and living with him. Believing him, she accompanied Grewal. They reached his house within 10-15 minutes. He took her in the room and bolted the room from inside. When she asked about Aunty and Maid, Grewal advised her to mind her business and used abusive language which she could not narrate and, thereafter, he offered meal and drinks, but she refused. Thereafter, Grewal pushed her on the bed and another person came out from the washroom, who was already there. Grewal asked him, by calling him Guru, to hold her hands otherwise she would raise noise and they after overpowering her, forcibly poured neat liquor in her mouth and she became intoxicated. At that time Guru was holding her hands and Grewal started touching her inappropriately and started kissing etc. and he put off her clothes. Due to intoxication she was unable to save her and Grewal ravished her and, thereafter, she fell unconscious and when she regained consciousness, it was about 5.00-5.30 p.m. She put on her clothes, but she could not find her slippers and, therefore, she ran barefoot and at that time Grewal Uncle came with bag and shoes and threatened her by saying that Army Officer was his relative and he would spoil job of her father, and they came on the road where Grewal made her to sit in the white coloured vehicle, which was being driven by someone else and Grewal sat with her in the back seat and started kissing her on her forehead and he left her at her residence at about 6.00-6.30 p.m. She did not disclose anything to her father as she was feeling shy and was also under fear that her father would reprimand her.
4. It has further been stated in statement of victim-petitioner that immediately after reaching home she took bath and put off her clothes which were washed by her Maid i
Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another
Anita Maria Dias and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another
The seriousness of the offence, the public interest in punishing persons for serious offences, and the importance of judicial scrutiny and leading evidence in court.
The court established that allegations in an FIR, if taken at face value, can substantiate the commission of a cognizable offence, thus inhibiting quashing unless clearly abusive or lacking merit.
Court held that an FIR for serious offences may be quashed if the complainant later establishes a consensual relationship and the allegations lack specificity.
Right to protection from sexual harassments is universally recognised basic human rights - Common minimum requirement of right has received global acceptance. This right has been embodied in Articles....
The court established that allegations in an FIR must be taken at face value at the preliminary stage, and the power to quash should be exercised sparingly, allowing the police to investigate cogniza....
A consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless it is shown that consent was obtained through deceit or coercion, with no intention of marriage from the beginning.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.